At the interface of syntax and prosody: Differentiating ...

© 2017 The authors. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 48, 2017, 223-238

doi: 10.5774/48-0-293

At the interface of syntax and prosody: Differentiating left

dislocated and tripartite verbless clauses in Biblical Hebrew1

Jacobus A. Naudé

Department of Hebrew, University of the Free State, South Africa

E-mail: [email protected]

Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé

Department of Hebrew, University of the Free State, South Africa [email protected]

Abstract

The so-called tripartite verbless clause in Biblical Hebrew consists of two nominal phrases and

a pronominal element. Three analyses of the pronominal element have been advanced, each

with implications for understanding the structure of the sentence. A first approach has been to

view the pronominal element as a copular constituent, which serves only to link the two nominal

constituents in a predication (Albrecht 1887, 1888; Brockelman 1956; and Kummerouw 2013).

A second approach has been to view the pronominal element as the resumptive element of a

dislocated constituent (Gesenius, Kautzsch and Cowley 1910; Andersen 1970; Zewi 1996,

1999, 2000; Joüon-Muraoka 2006). A third approach combines the first and second approaches

and is represented by the work of Khan (1988, 2006) and Holmstedt and Jones (2014). A fourth

approach views the pronominal element as a “last resort” syntactic strategy—the pronominal

element is a pronominal clitic, which provides agreement features for the subject (Naudé 1990,

1993, 1994, 1999, 2002). The pronominal element is obligatory when the nominal predicate is

a referring noun phrase—the pronominal clitic is used to prevent ambiguity in the assignment

of subject and predicate (see Doron 1986; Borer 1983).

As is well-known in the linguistics literature, cross-linguistically left dislocation involves a

“gap” at the boundary between the dislocated constituent and the matrix sentence. In spoken

language, this gap may be realized by a small pause or an interjection (Berman and Grosu 1976).

In this paper we consider the prosodic evidence that is available from the Masoretic accentual

tradition. The Masoretes were Jewish scribes who attempted to preserve the precise reading

1 It is a pleasure to dedicate this article to our teacher, colleague and friend, Johan Oosthuizen. An earlier version

of this paper was presented at the Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew Section of the Society of Biblical Literature

Annual Meeting (San Antonio, Texas) on 22 November 2016. This work is based on research supported in part by

the National Research Foundation of South Africa (Jacobus A. Naudé UID 85902 and Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé

UID 95926). The grantholders acknowledge that opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations

expressed in any publication generated by the NRF supported research are those of the authors, and that the NRF

accepts no liability whatsoever in this regard.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Jacobus A. Naudé & Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé

http://spil.journals.ac.za

224

tradition of the biblical text through the addition of a complex system of “accents” which were

superimposed on the traditional Hebrew text between the sixth and the tenth centuries CE.

Although the accentual system also was used for cantillation purposes, its complex system of

conjunctive and disjunctive accents provides important evidence for prosodic phrasing, which

can be utilized for differentiating the role of the pronoun in these two types of sentences which

are otherwise structurally identical.

Keywords: Biblical Hebrew, left dislocation, tripartite nominal clause, copula, Masoretic

accents, prosody, syntax.

1. Introduction

The so-called tripartite verbless clause in Biblical Hebrew consists of two nominal phrases and

a pronominal element. As described in the traditional Hebrew grammars, the pronominal

element—a third-person independent pronoun, which we refer to as PRON—may appear as

either the second constituent or as the third constituent. Example (1) illustrates PRON as the

second constituent and (2) illustrates PRON as the third constituent.2

ים (1) ה י־יהוה הוא אל כ

kî YHWH hûʾ ʾĕlōhîm

because YHWH PRON:MS God

“Because the LORD he God.” (Psalm 100:3)

ט הוא (2) פ ים׀ ש י־אלה כ

kî ʾĕlōhîm šōpēṭ hûʾ

because God judge PRON:MS

“Because God judge he.” (Psalm 50:6)

At least four analyses of the pronominal element have been advanced, each with implications

for understanding the structure of the sentence. One approach has been to view the pronominal

element as a copular constituent, which serves only to link the two nominal constituents in a

predication (Albrecht 1887, 1888; Brockelman 1956). In this analysis, (1) is translated “The

LORD is God” and (2) is translated “God is a judge.”

A second approach has been to view the pronominal element as the resumptive element of a

left dislocated constituent (Gesenius, Kautzsch and Cowley 1910; Andersen 1970; Zewi 1996,

1999, 2000; Joüon-Muraoka 2006). Left dislocation involves a constituent which appears at the

front (left) edge of a sentence outside of the sentence proper; the left dislocated constituent is

resumed within the sentence by a pronominal element with which it agrees and is co-referential.

If the PRON in (1) is understood as the resumed element of a left dislocated constituent, the

sentence is translated: “As for the LORD, he is God.” The personal name is left dislocated and

the co-referential pronoun hu’ provides resumption within the sentence. Similarly, (2) is

translated “As for God, he is a judge.”

2 Each Hebrew example includes the Hebrew text (with the Masoretic accents), transliteration, morpheme-by-

morpheme gloss, and translation. The glosses follow the Leipzig Glossing Rules with the addition of the following

abbreviations: C = conjunctive accent; D = disjunctive accent; GENT = gentilic suffix; MQ = maqqēp; PRON =

pronominal element. Because the stem formations of Hebrew verbs (e.g. Qal, Niphal, etc.) are not relevant to the

linguistic analysis presented here, they are not indicated in the glosses.

At the interface of syntax and prosody


225

A third approach combines these two interpretations of the pronominal element. For example,

Holmstedt and Jones (2014) identify some tripartite verbless clauses as left dislocation

structures in cases where syntactically there is agreement in number and gender with the

resumed element and pragmatically the left dislocated element is the topic in a topic-focus

structure. Example (1), for example, they identify as a left dislocation construction: “As for the

LORD, he is God.” By contrast, in the syntactically identical sentence in (3), they identify the

PRON as a copula because they do not view the first constituent as pragmatically functioning

as a left dislocated constituent in the larger context. They translate (3) as “The LORD is his

portion”:

יהוה הוא נחלתו (3)

YHWH hûʾ naḥălātô

YHWH PRON:MS inheritance:3MS

“The LORD is his portion.” (Deuteronomy 18:2)

The example in (4) is syntactically identical to (3) and is both syntactically and lexically

identical to (1). Holmstedt and Jones, however, classify it as ambiguous because the pragmatics

of the first constituent are not clear in the context:

יםיהו (4) ה הוא האלה

YHWH hûʾ ʾĕlōhîm

YHWH PRON:MS God

“The LORD is God” or “The LORD, he is God.” (Deuteronomy 4:35)

Khan’s (2006) approach is similar.

In this paper we present a fourth approach for distinguishing tripartite verbless clauses from

verbless clauses with a left dislocated subject constituent based upon the interface between

syntax and prosody. This research expands and clarifies the “last resort” analysis of tripartite

nominal clauses previously set forth for Biblical Hebrew in Naudé (1990, 1994, 1999), for

Qumran Hebrew in Naudé (2002), and for Biblical Aramaic in Naudé (1993, 1994). (The

relation of this analysis to editorial theory and complexity theory is described in more detail in

Naudé and Miller-Naudé [in preparation]).

The paper is organised as follows: In Section 2 we describe the manuscript traditions of Biblical

Hebrew and the prosodic information that can be gleaned from those traditions. In Section 3 we

analyse these constructions from the perspective of a “tripartite nominal clause”. In Section 4

we analyse these constructions from the perspective a left dislocated constituent which is

resumed in the matrix clause. In Section 5 we offer our conclusions.

2. Biblical Hebrew, Tiberian Hebrew and Prosody

Biblical Hebrew reflects to a large extent the varieties of Hebrew that were spoken in Israel

from the beginning of the Iron Age (about 1200 BCE) to the Hellenistic era (about 165 BCE).

The term refers to the form of the language of the Hebrew Bible/Tanak/Old Testament as it

appears in the modern scholarly printed editions; it is based on a form of the biblical text found

in medieval manuscripts that derives from a school of scholars known as the Masoretes (from

the Hebrew verbal root msr which means “to hand down”).



226

Three groups of Masoretes were active, namely in Babylon, Palestine and Tiberias. Their most

important task was transmitting the consonantal text with the utmost accuracy. In contrast,

earlier scribal activities at Qumran do not reflect the same tradition of precise and conservative

copying, but rather exhibit interventions by the scribe (see Tov 2004: 250-254). In addition to

these texts a number of biblical texts have been brought to Qumran from elsewhere which are

closer to the Septuagint and the Samaritan tradition (Tov 2001: 107). Therefore the Qumran

scrolls attest to a multiplicity of texts that co-existed with the one which is found in the Tiberian

Masoretic tradition. Originally Biblical Hebrew writing consisted of consonants only. In order to prevent the loss

of the correct pronunciation, which was transmitted orally, around 600 CE the Masoretes began

to devise a system of signs to record and standardise the received pronunciation. The work of

the Masoretes was continued for many centuries by a large number of scholars. The most

important system is known as the Tiberian Masoretic system and is the product of the work of

the Ben Asher family in Tiberias about 900 CE. The consonantal text that was incorporated into

the Tiberian Masoretic tradition is a textual tradition that was transmitted with precision since

at least the third century BCE. In addition to the consonantal text, the Tiberian Masoretic

tradition concerns the layout of the text, indications of divisions into paragraphs, vocalisation,

accent signs, marginal notes, treatises and the orally transmitted reading tradition. The accent

and vocalisation signs, but not the reading tradition that the signs represented, as well as the

majority of textual notes and treatises were developed by the Masoretes. The other components

were inherited from earlier traditions (Khan 2013: 3-4). The highly meticulous work of the Masoretes gave rise to the term for the careful biblical text

that they produced, the Masoretic text. The earliest complete text in which this system is

preserved is the Leningrad Codex from the year 1008, which is now housed in the Russian

National Library in St Petersburg. The scientific editions of the Hebrew Bible in the series of

Biblia Hebraica use the Leningrad Codex as their base text, specifically the third edition of the

Biblia Hebraica Kittel (1937), Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1977) and Biblia Hebraica

Quinta (since 2004). The Biblical Hebrew described in this article is thus, strictly speaking, the

Masoretic Biblical Hebrew of the Ben Asher family. Therefore, some scholars prefer the term

“Tiberian (Biblical) Hebrew” instead of “Biblical Hebrew.”

The accent system which the Masoretes developed indicates the stressed syllable of a word,

which can be crucial to determine the correct interpretation, for example šāḇû “they captured”

(Genesis 34:29) but šāḇû “they returned” (Joshua 2:22). The accent system also indicates the

places where long or short pauses occur in a clause and which words belong together (Yeivin

1980: 158; Khan 2013: 37). There are two accent systems—one for the prose sections and one

for three poetic books, namely Psalms, Job and Proverbs (Yeivin 1980: 157-158). The most

important accent signs are, however, more or less the same for both. Two groups of accent signs

may be distinguished, namely conjunctive (joining) accents and disjunctive (separating)

accents. They are used as follows: The accent sign indicates the position of the stressed syllable

in a word. In Biblical Hebrew the final syllable is usually accented; in certain cases also the

penultimate is accented. The accent sign is normally placed above or below the first consonant

of the accented syllable. In some cases accent signs are placed at the beginning or end of the

word—these are the so-called prepositive and postpositive accents, respectively. The

conjunctive and disjunctive accents often follow each other in a fixed order. The resultant

sequence of accents was used to group together the words of the Biblical Hebrew text. This



227

grouping of words facilitated the recitation of the Hebrew Bible in the synagogues and was thus

similar to punctuation in modern publications.

It was the achievement of the Masoretes to create a written notation to record a tradition that

they received from an earlier period. The disjunctive signs, which exist both in the Babylonian

and Tiberian systems, have a double function of punctuation and melody (Ofer 2016: 192). The

disjunctive accents mark a break and require the reader to pause slightly. The various

disjunctive accents express different degrees of pause. The musical function combines with

punctuation to give a division of the verse into syntactic units (Ofer 2016: 192).

Khan (2013: 39-40) provides two examples where disjunctive accents serve to indicate which

of two syntactic interpretations should be followed. Although he describes the accents as

indicating syntactic divisions (similarly, Ofer 2016: 192), it is rather the case that they indicate

prosodic phrases (see Dresher 1984), some of which correspond with syntactic phrase structure.

The first example is given in (5):

י (5) ד אב ב י א ארמ

ʾărammî(D) ʾōḇēḏ(C) ʾāḇ-î(C)

Aram:GENT PTCP:MS:become.lost/perish father-my

“An Aramaean was seeking to destroy my father.” (Deuteronomy 26:5)

* “A wandering Aramaean was my father.”

The disjunctive accent on the first word of the clause indicates that it is prosodically separated

from the following participle. This means that the first two words should not be interpreted as

noun and attributive participle, which would normally be indicated as one intonational phrase

with a conjunctive accent. Instead, the two words should be interpreted as subject and predicate.

This interpretation is found in Targum Onqelos (an ancient Aramaic translation of the Hebrew

Bible) and midrashic (i.e. exegetical) literature from which it was incorporated into the Passover

liturgy (the Haggadah); it is also reflected in the translation of the Latin Vulgate. The second

interpretation is found in many modern versions, such as the Revised Standard Version, which

did not take the accents into account: “A wandering Aramaean was my father.”

In the second example described by Khan, multiple disjunctive accents are found. We have

indicated them in the gloss hierarchically—a D0 accent is a strongly disjunctive accent that

marks either the end of the verse or the greatest pause within the verse, a D1 accent is a slightly

less strong disjunctive accent that indicates the biggest break within half of the verse, a D2

accent is an even less strong disjunctive accent.

רך יהוה (6) ו ד ר פנ דב א במ קול קור

qôl(C) qôrēʾ(D1) bam-miḏbār(D2) pannû(D3) dereḵ(C) YHWH(D0)

voice.of PTCP:MS:call in:DEF-wilderness IMP:MP:prepare way.of YHWH

“A voice of one crying: ‘In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD.’” (Isaiah 40:3)

* “A voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the LORD.’”

In this sentence the accents mark a major intonational pause after the word qôrēʾ (“crying”),

which correlates with a syntactic break, namely, the beginning of the quotation. This

interpretation means that the prepositional “in the wilderness” belongs to the quotation that



228

follows and is topicalised within its sentence (the topicalised phrase is separated from its

sentence by a smaller intonational pause). The interpretation reflected by the accents

corresponds to what is found in Rabbinic literature and the Aramaic Targums, and is followed

by many modern English translations. By contrast, the KJV (King James Version) translates:

“The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD.”3

The conjunctive accents, which exist only in the Tiberian system, occur between the disjunctive

accents; all of the conjunctive accents express the same degree of connection (Khan 2013: 38).

They have only a musical function: their melody fits in with the melody of the following

disjunctive sign, where a sequence of two or three conjunctive signs precedes a disjunctive sign

resulting in considerable musical variety (Ofer 2016: 192). Short words are cliticised to the

following word; they form a single musical unit with the short word joined to the following

word with a sign, the maqqēp, which itself does not indicate musical motifs, but gives further

indication of how the music of the chant should be related to the words of the text (Yeivin 1980:

157).

3. The Tripartite Verbless Clause

We begin by identifying the syntactic features of the tripartite verbless clause and its

pronominal element. We will make two separate arguments against PRON as a copula—one

from a generative perspective and one from a typological perspective. From a generative

perspective, the tripartite verbless clause is like the verbless clause in that both kinds of clauses

lack an overt form of the verb hāyâ (“be”). If the pronominal element is interpreted as a copula,

then it should exhibit similar syntactic roles to the verb hāyâ. This, however, does not seem to

be the case in many ways. First, hāyâ can optionally appear in constructions with the participle,

but PRON cannot. Second, PRON cannot precede the subject of a tripartite verbless clause, but

hāyâ can precede the subject of an existential clause. Third, hāyâ allows pro-drop (the non-

expression of an independent subject in a predication), but tripartite verbless clauses require the

subject to be explicitly expressed. Fourth, existential sentences with hāyâ typically have noun

phrases, prepositional phrases and adjectival phrases as the complement predicate. Tripartite

verbless clauses usually have noun phrases and occasionally prepositionally phrases as the

predicate. Tripartite verbless clauses thus are primarily used as specificational clauses involving

two noun phrases; they thus have a reduced function from existential predications with hāyâ.

We conclude, therefore, that PRON in the tripartite verbal clause is not a copula and it does not

occupy an argument position within the predication.

Let us now consider whether PRON should be identified as a copula from a typological point

of view. Among the languages of the world, the main differentiation is between languages in

which no overt item marks the relation between the nominal subject and the nominal predicate

(in other words, a zero copula) and languages in which an overt item marking the relation

between the nominal subject and the nominal predicate is required. Intermediate positions on

the continuum involve cases where the use of a zero copula is limited by some sort of condition.

A common condition is the distinction between the use of a zero copula for present tense and

an overt copula for non-present tense. This is the case in Biblical Hebrew, where hāyâ is used

3 It is not clear whether the translators of the KJV did not pay attention to the accents or whether they were

harmonising with New Testament citations of the Isaiah verse, e.g. Matthew 3:3 “For this is he that was spoken of

by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his

paths straight.”



229

for past or future time and a zero strategy (non-overt copula) is used for present tense (see, e.g.

Gesenius, Kautzsch and Cowley 1910: 454; Joüon 1947: 471; Waltke and O’Connor 1990: 72;

Zewi 2013: 836). Although a pro-copula (that is, a demonstrative pronoun or a personal

pronoun) may be used as a copula in some languages, its use is usually “obligatory in nominal

predication” (Stasson 2005: 487). This is not the situation in Biblical Hebrew, however, where

only a small percentage of verbless predications include a personal pronoun in addition to the

nominal subject and nominal predicate. In other words, it is not PRON which creates the

predication between two nominal elements; PRON therefore cannot be a copula (contra

Kummerow 2013).

Rather than viewing PRON as a copula and thus as part of the predicate, PRON has features

that indicate that it is a clitic-like element that relates to the subject constituent. First, we note

that PRON regularly appears immediately following the subject. It never precedes the subject

and it cannot be moved out of the sentence. Second, unlike the resumptive pronoun in a sentence

with a dislocated constituent, PRON agrees with its subject in gender and number, but not in

person—PRON is always third person. Third, PRON fits the criteria of Zwicky 1977 and 1985

concerning the identification of clitics. Clitics typically do not carry stress, cannot occur in

isolation, cannot stand in first position in a sentence and cannot form an independent noun

phrase node but instead form part of the node to which it cliticises. We can illustrate these

features of PRON in (7):

ים (7) וא האלה ה אתה־ה ה יהו ועת

wə-ʿattâ YHWH ʾattâ(MQ) hûʾ hā-ʾĕlōhîm

and-now YHWH you:MS PRON:MS DEF-God

“And now, O LORD, you are God.” (1 Chronicles 17:26)

The use of PRON after the second masculine singular pronoun is especially prevalent after a

vocative within direct speech. Note that the PRON is joined with a maqqēp (a hyphen-like

Masoretic symbol, abbreviated MQ in the gloss) to the subject pronoun ʾattâ, thus forming one

accentual unit; ʾattâ does not have its own Masoretic accent. (This was already shown in Naudé

1993 and 1994 but was not taken note of by researchers afterwards.)

In cases where PRON is not joined with a maqqēp to the preceding subject, PRON nonetheless

is joined prosodically by a conjunctive accent on the preceding subject:

ים (8) ית יהוה האלה זה הוא ב

zeh(C) hûʾ(D) bêṯ YHWH hā-ʾĕlōhîm

this PRON:MS house.of YHWH DEF-God

“This is the house of the LORD God.” (1 Chronicles 22:1)

ם (9) אד מה מ ים ה וחרש

we-ḥārāš-îm(C) hēmmâ mē-ʾāḏām

and-craftsman-PL PRON:MPL from-human

“The craftsmen are human (lit. from humankind).” (Isaiah 44:11)



230

ן (10) ה ם הוא לכ חטאת האש י כ כ

kî ka-ḥaṭṭāʾt(D) hā-ʾāšām(C) hûʾ lak-kōhēn

Because like:DEF-sin.offering DEF-guilt.offering PRON:MS to:DEF-priest

“For, like the sin offering, the guilt offering belongs to the priest.” (Leviticus 14:13)

In this example, the adjunct prepositional phrase “like the sin offering” is topicalised at the

beginning of the sentence.

The presence of PRON is optional—it is used to prevent ambiguity in the assignment of subject

and predicate (see Doron 1986; Borer 1983). Put differently, the pronominal element allows

Case assignment of the subject to one of the two nominal phrases within the verbless clause.

Because verbless clauses in Biblical Hebrew are particularly vulnerable to syntactic ambiguity,

the addition of PRON to form a tripartite verbless clause removes ambiguity in the following

contexts.

First, in direct speech, vocative expressions may be confused with nominal predications. In

these contexts, the addition of PRON serves to discriminate a nominal predication from

vocative epithets by indicating which nominal element is the subject. In (11), PRON indicates

that the preceding independent personal pronoun ʾattâ should be understood as the subject

rather than as appositional to the following noun phrase. In other words, malkî (“my king”)

cannot be understood as a vocative interposed between the pronominal subject (“you”) and

ʾĕlōhîm (“God”) as the nominal predicate:

ים (11) י אלה אתה־הוא מלכ

ʾattâ(MQ)hûʾ(C) malk-î ʾĕlōhîm

you:MS PRON:MS king-my God

“You are my king, O God.” (Psalm 44:5)

* “You, my king, are God.”

Second, when the nominal subject and nominal predicate could be understood as an unmarked

relative clause, PRON serves to indicate that one of the nominal elements is instead the subject

of an independent clause:

שו (12) ריו י ב ן כל־חב ה

ם אד מה מ ים ה וחרש

דו עמ תקבצו כלם י י

hēn kol ḥăḇērāyw yēḇōšû

behold all.of companion:PL:3MS IMPV:3MP:ashamed

we-ḥārāš-îm(C) hēmmâ mēʾāḏām

and-craftsman-PL PRON:3MP from-human

yiṯqabbeṣû kullām yaʿămōḏû

IMPV:3MP:be.assembled kol:3MP IMPV:3MP:stand

“Behold, all of its companions will be ashamed.

The craftsmen are from humankind.



231

* The craftsman (who are) human

Let all of them be assembled, let them stand up…” (Isaiah 44:11)

The PRON hēmmâ forces a reading “the craftsmen are from humankind” rather than “the

craftsmen (who are) human” as the subject of the following verbs.

Similarly, when the nominal predicate is a preposition phrase, PRON may be used to ensure

that the prepositional phrase is not read as an unmarked relative clause. In (13), the PRON

forces the reading “the guilt offering belongs to the priest” rather than “the guilt offering

(which) belongs to the priest.”

ן (13) ה ם הוא לכ חטאת האש י כ כ

kî ka-ḥaṭṭāʾt hā-ʾāšām(C) hûʾ lak-kōhēn

Because like:DEF-sin.offering DEF-guilt.offering PRON:MS to:DEF-priest

“Because like the sin offering, the guilt offering belongs to the priest.” (Leviticus 14:13)

* “Because like the sin offering, the guilt offering (which) belongs to the priest...”

Third, when the nominal subject is itself a demonstrative pronoun, PRON indicates

unambiguously that it is the subject:

ם (14) ת יר ם ובט יה ת ם בחצר לה שמ אל וא שמע י י ם בנ לה ה א

ʾēlleh(C) hēm benê yišmāʿēʾl we-ʾēlleh šemōtām be-ḥaṣrêhem

these PRON:MP son:PL.of Ishmael and-these name:PL:3MP in-village:PL:3MP

û-ḇe-ṭîrōṯām

and-in-encampment:PL:3MP

“These are the sons of Ishmael and these (are) their names by their villages and by their

encampments.” (Genesis 25:16)

The first verbless sentence has the masculine plural PRON hēm following ʾēlleh as the subject.

The following verbless sentence has a similar structure and PRON is not needed to assist in

designating the subject.

Similarly, PRON may be used after an independent personal pronoun which functions as an

anaphoric pronoun to a preceding indefinite noun phrase:

ה (15) נח ית מ סך העל כת נ ם שפ ך גם־לה ם גורל ם ה ך ה י־נחל חלק בחלק

bi-ḥalleqê naḥal ḥelq-ēḵ hēm(C) hēm gôrāl-ēḵ

with-stone:PL:of valley portion-your:FS PRON:3MP PRON:3MP lot-your:FS

gam lāhem šāpaḵt neseḵ heʿĕlîḵ minḥâ

indeed to:3MP PFV:2FS:pour.out libration PFV:2FS:brought grain.offering

“With the smooth stones of the valley is your portion. They are your lot. Indeed to them

you have poured out libations, you have brought a grain offering.” (Isaiah 57:6)



232

Fourth, the use of PRON may be used to indicate that an adjectival constituent should be

understood as the subject rather than the predicate of the predication:

יק הוא יהוה (16) צד

ṣaddîq(C) hûʾ YHWH

righteous PRON:MS YHWH

“A righteous one is the LORD.” (Lamentations 1:18)

*The LORD is righteous.

The conjunctive accent on the first constituent and the PRON which follows it indicates that

the sentence should be interpreted as “A righteous one is the LORD” and not as “The LORD is

righteous” (with the adjective as a predicate).

One very interesting feature of tripartite verbless clauses is the fact that WH-interrogatives

trigger inversion of the subject and predicate constituents:

נה׃ (17) בת לבד צ ר ה לה אש בע כבשת הא נה ש ה ה מ

mâ(C) hēnnâ šeḇaʿ kəḇāśōṯ hā-ʾēlleh ʾăšer

what PRON:FP seven ewe.lamb:FPL DET-these which

hiṣṣaḇtā lə-ḇaddānâ

PFV:you.caused.to.stand:MS to-part:FP

“What are these seven ewe lambs which you have set apart by themselves?” (Genesis

21:29)

The sentence exhibits agreement in gender of PRON with the subject. The interrogative mâ

representing the predicate nominal occurs in first position and has triggered the inversion of the

subject constituent and the PRON which follows it in indicative sentences. The sentence is not

an example of left dislocation (contra Holmstedt and Jones 2014: 77).

Similarly, in (18) the interrogative triggers inversion of the subject and PRON, but in addition

the subject has become topicalised and moved to the beginning of the sentence:

ינו (18) י תל ן מה־הוא כ יו׃ ואהר על

wə-ʾahărōn(C) mah(MQ)hûʾ kî tallînû4 ʿālāyw

and-Aharon what PRON:MS that IMPV:grumble:2MP against:him

“And who is Aaron that you grumble against him?” (Numbers 16:11)

In this example, the fact that all three constituents of the tripartite verbless clause are joined

together, first with a conjunctive accent and then with a maqqēp, means that the sentence cannot

be understood as a left dislocation structure (contra Holmstedt and Jones 2014: 78).

We have seen that tripartite verbless clauses can be identified both by syntactic and prosodic

features. Syntactically, PRON occurs as the second constituent, immediately after the subject

4 We follow the qere reading (the marginal “read” reading) as opposed to the ketiv (“written” reading) for this

verb, but the difference between the two readings does not affect the linguistic analysis.



233

in indicative sentences and interrogative yes-no sentences. In interrogative sentences with a

WH-question, there is inversion of subject and PRON. The PRON is optional and is used to

make explicit the subject of the verbless predication.

Prosodically, the subject and its PRON form one intonational unit. The PRON may lack stress

and be joined to the subject with a maqqēp or the PRON may be joined to the subject with a

conjunctive accent. These prosodic features serve to disambiguate PRON from a full-fledged

independent pronoun as well as from the resumptive element of a left dislocation construction.

In addition, note that the traditional description of a tripartite verbless clause as having the

pronominal element either in second or third position in the sentence is incorrect—a tripartite

verbless clause never has PRON in third position, except in a WH-interrogative sentence as a

result of inversion.

4. Left dislocation

We turn now to verbless clauses with left dislocation of the subject constituent. Left dislocation

involves a constituent that occurs outside of the matrix sentence and is resumed by a pronominal

element within the sentence. Syntactically, the sentence boundary may be indicated by a

sentence adverbial such as hă-lōʾ (the interrogative marker followed by the negative particle):

ם (19) נו ה וא ל ם הל נינם וכל־בהמת ם וק ה קנ מ

miqnēhem wə-qinyānām wə-kol bəhemtām(D1) hă-lōʾ(C) lānû(D2) hēm(D0)

cattle:3MP and-posessions:3MP and-all beasts:3MP Q-NEG to:us PRON:MP

“As for their cattle and their possessions and all their beasts, won’t they be ours?”

(Genesis 34:23)

The left dislocated subject is separated from the main sentence both syntactically and

prosodically by a strong disjunctive accent. The subject is resumed within the sentence with the

third person plural pronoun hēm. Note that the pronoun is a fully-fledged pronoun—

syntactically it functions as the subject of the sentence and prosodically it has its own accent

and does not cliticise to a preceding constituent. In these respects, the pronoun in left dislocation

constructions is distinct from the PRON of tripartite verbless clauses.

Similarly, when the sentence is negated, the negative marker stands at the beginning of the

matrix sentence:

מה (20) ל ה שרא י י בנ א מ ים ל נ בע והג

wə-hag-giḇʿōnîm(D) lōʾ(C) mib-bənê(C) yiśrāʾēl(C) hēmmâ

and-DET-Gibeonite:PL NEG from-sons.of Israel PRON:MP

“As for the Gibeonites, they are not of the Israelites.” (2 Samuel 21:2)

In addition to syntactic indications of the sentence boundary, there are prosodic indications as

well. Cross-linguistically left dislocation involves a “gap” at the boundary between the

dislocated constituent and the matrix sentence. In spoken language, this gap may be realized by

a small pause or an interjection (Berman and Grosu 1976) which sets apart the dislocated

element with its own intonational contour (see also Korchin 2015: 14-15). In the Masoretic

tradition of the Hebrew Bible, left dislocated constituents are consistently set apart from the



234

sentence with a disjunctive accent, as can be seen in the examples here. The same is true when

the sentence boundary is not syntactically indicated by a sentence adverbial, as in (21):

ן (21) ד הוא הקט ודו wə-ḏāwīḏ(D) hûʾ(C) haq-qāṭān(D)

and-David PRON:MS DET-small:MS

“As for David, he was the youngest.” (1 Samuel 17:14)

In left dislocation structures, the order of constituents within the matrix sentence may be in

predicate—subject order rather than subject—predicate order, depending upon the information

structure of the sentence. In (22), the prepositional predicate is placed in first position within

the matrix sentence to provide contrastive focus—the land of Egypt is before you, not someone

else:

וא (22) ם לפניך ה י צר רץ מ א

ʾereṣ(C) miṣrayim(D) ləpāneykā(C) hîʾ5

land:FS.of Egypt to-faces-your PRON:FS

“As for the land of Egypt, it is before you.” (Genesis 47:6)

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, we have seen that the tripartite verbless clauses and left dislocated verbless

clauses are structurally distinct, both syntactically and prosodically. Traditional attempts to

analyse all verbless sentences with three constituents in which one constituent is

morphologically a pronoun resulted in incorrect identifications of the pronominal element as

either a copula or a resumptive pronoun.

The analysis by Holmstedt and Jones (2014) attempted to distinguish tripartite verbless clauses

from left dislocated verbless clauses by examining both the syntax and the

semantics/pragmatics of the construction within its textual context. The analysis presented here

relies upon the vocalisation tradition as preserved by the Masoretic accentual system to

differentiate the two constructions rather than upon our ability to discern the semantics or

pragmatics of the initial constituent of the construction within the biblical text. In many

examples, our analysis confirms that of Holmstedt and Jones—for example, sentence (1) does

present an example of left dislocation. In far fewer examples, our analysis is not identical. Of

the left dislocation examples they identify, 10% are examples of “last resort” pronouns or of

simple verbless clauses.6 Of the 38 examples they identify as “copular” (which we see rather as

the use of a “last resort pronoun”), 13 examples (34%) are instead examples of left dislocation.7

Furthermore, all of their “ambiguous” examples (including example [4] above and Appendix

C) can be clearly identified as either left dislocation (12 examples) or tripartite verbless clauses

5 Reading the pronoun with the qere (“reading” tradition) rather than the ketiv (“written tradition”). 6 The following verses that Holmstedt and Jones (2014: 77-82) identify as left dislocation should rather be

identified as tripartite verbless clauses: Genesis 21:29; 30:33; Exodus 39:5; 39:14; Numbers 16:11; Isaiah 44:11;

57:6; Psalm 39:5; Job 41:3; Nehemiah 8:9. Genesis 37:27 is a simple verbless clause. 7 The following verses that Holmstedt and Jones (2014: 83-85) identify as “copular examples” (which we see

rather as verbless clauses with a “last resort” pronominal element) should rather be identified as left dislocated

verbless clauses: Genesis 2:19; 15:2; 36:8; 42:6; Leviticus 25:33; Deuteronomy 10:9; 10:17-18; 12:23; 18:2;

Joshua 13:14; 13:33; Isaiah 9:14; Zephaniah 2:12.



235

with a “last resort” pronoun (1 example) on the basis of their Masoretic vocalisation.8 The fact

that most of the 13 examples identified by Holmstedt and Jones as “ambiguous” were

understood by the Masoretes as left dislocated verbless clauses, may mean that the

semantic/pragmatic features of the left dislocated constituent were somewhat different in

Biblical Hebrew than in English. Or it may mean that it is simply difficult to be certain about

the semantic/pragmatic import of an ancient written text, the attempts by Korchin (2015)

notwithstanding. It is important to note, however, that in the vast majority of cases, attention to

the prosodic features of these constructions provides additional confirmation for distinguishing

between the two constructions.

In this article, we have argued that the tripartite verbless clauses and left dislocated verbless

clauses reflect two different underlying structures and two very different pronominal elements.

Tripartite verbless clauses use a cliticised pronominal element after the subject as a “last resort”

strategy for unambiguously identifying the subject of a verbless sentence. Left dislocated

verbless sentences have a subject constituent outside of the matrix sentence which is resumed

within the sentence proper. The pronominal element within tripartite verbless clauses is always

prosodically joined to its subject, either with a maqqēp or with a conjunctive accent. By

contrast, the pronominal element within left dislocated verbless clauses is a fully-fledged

pronoun which functions as an argument in the sentence and the left dislocated element is

prosodically separated from the matrix sentence with a disjunctive accent. As a result, verbless

clauses with a dislocated element may have the pronominal element as the second or third

constituent in the sentence, in contrast to tripartite verbless sentences in which PRON always

occurs after the subject.

The evidence of the Masoretic vocalisation, in which every accent is either conjunctive or

disjunctive, provides a way to identify a pronominal clitic (the PRON of the tripartite verbless

clause), which is joined to its subject with a conjunctive accent. It also provides a way to identify

a left dislocated constituent, which is separated prosodically and intonationally from the matrix

sentence, by its disjunctive accent. By differentiating the two constructions on the basis of their

morphological, syntactic and prosodic features, it is possible to translate and interpret these

structures in the Hebrew Bible more accurately and insightfully.

References

Albrecht, C. 1887. Die Wortstellung im hebräischen Nominalsatze. Zeitschrift für die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 7: 218-224.

Albrecht, C. 1888. Die Wortstellung im hebräischen Nominalsatze: Teil II. Zeitschrift für die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 8: 249-263.

Andersen, F. I. 1970. The Hebrew verbless clause in the Pentateuch. Journal of Biblical

Literature Monograph Series 14. New York and Nashville: Abingdon.

8 The following examples that Holmstedt and Jones (2014: 85-86) identify as “ambiguous examples” should be

understood as left dislocated constructions: Leviticus 20:21; Deuteronomy 4:35; 4:39; 7:9; Joshua 2:11; 1 Kings

8:60; 18:39; Qoheleth 1:9; Daniel 8:21; 2 Chronicles 33:13. Only Qoheleth 1:17 should be identified as a tripartite

verbless clause with a “last resort” pronominal element.



236

Baastian, F. J. 2000. Existential clauses in Qumran Hebrew. In T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde

(eds.) Diggers at the well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of

the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 36. Leiden:

Brill. pp. 1-11.

Berman, R. and A. Grosu. 1976. Aspects of the copula in Modern Hebrew. In P. Cole (ed.)

Studies in Modern Hebrew syntax and semantics. Amsterdam: North-Holland. pp. 265-285.

Borer, H. 1983. Parametric syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.

Brockelman, C. 1956. Hebräische Syntax. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.

Doron, E. 1986. The pronominal “copula” as agreement clitic. Syntax and Semantics 19: 313-

332.

Dresher, B. E. 1984. The prosodic basis of the Tiberian Hebrew system of accents. Language

70(1): 1-52.

Geiger, G. 2012. Das hebräische Partizip in den Texten aus der judäischen Wüste. Studies on

the Texts of the Desert of Judah 101. Leiden: Brill.

Gesenius, W., E. Kautzsch and A. E. Cowley. 1910 Gesenius’ Hebrew grammar. 2nd English

edition. Oxford: Clarendon.

Holmstedt, R. D. and A. R. Jones. 2014. The pronoun in tripartite verbless clauses in Biblical

Hebrew: Resumption for left-dislocation or pronominal copula? Journal of Semitic Studies

59(1): 53-89.

Joüon, P. 1947. Grammaire de l’Hébreu biblique. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico.

Joüon, P. and T. Muraoka. 2006. A grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2d edition. Rome: Pontifical

Biblical Institute.

Khan, G. 1988. Studies in Semitic syntax. London Oriental Series 38. London: Oxford

University Press.

Khan, G. 2006. Some aspects of the copula in North West Semitic. In S. E. Fassberg and A.

Hurvitz (eds.) Biblical Hebrew in its Northwest Semitic setting: Typological and historical

perspectives. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magness Press / Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

pp. 155-176.

Khan, G. 2013. A short introduction to the Tiberian Masoretic Bible and its reading tradition.

2nd edition. Gorgias Handbooks 25. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias.

Korchin, P. 2015. Suspense and authority amid Biblical Hebrew front dislocation. Journal of

Hebrew Scriptures Volume 15, Article 1 DOI:10.5508/jhs.2015.v15.a1.



237

Kummerow, D. 2013. Object predication in Tiberian Hebrew: A typological approach to the

nonverbal copula. Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt

19: 1-135.

Miller, C. L. (ed.) 1999. The verbless clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic approaches.

Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 1. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Naudé, J. A. 1990. A syntactic analysis of dislocation in Biblical Hebrew. Journal of Northwest

Semitic Languages 16: 115-130.

Naudé, J. A. 1993. Aspects of the verbless clause in Biblical Aramaic. South African Journal

of Linguistics 18: 49-63.

Naudé, J. A. 1994. The verbless clause with pleonastic pronoun in Biblical Aramaic. Journal

for Semitics 6: 74-93.

Naudé, J. A. 1999. Syntactic aspects of co-ordinate subjects with independent personal

pronouns. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 25(2): 75-99.

Naudé, J. A. 2002. The third person pronoun in tripartite verbless clauses of Qumran Hebrew.

In H. J. Simon and H. Wiese (eds.) Pronouns: Representation and grammar. Amsterdam:

Benjamins. pp. 161-182.

Naudé, J. A. and C. L. Miller-Naudé. In preparation. Complexity theory. In J. A. Cook and R.

D. Holmstedt (eds.) Linguistics for hebraists and biblical scholars. Linguistic Studies in

Ancient West Semitic. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Ofer, Y. 2016. The Tiberian tradition of reading the Bible and the masoretic system. In W. R.

Garr and S. E. Fassberg (eds.) A handbook of Biblical Hebrew. 2 volumes. Volume 1: Periods,

Corpora, and Reading Traditions. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. pp. 187-202.

Stasson, L. 2005. Zero copula for predicate nominals. In M. Haspelmath, M. S. Dryer, D. Gil,

B. Comrie (eds.) World atlas of language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 486-

487.

Van Hecke, P. 2008. Constituent order in existential clauses. In J. Joosten and J.-S. Rey (eds.)

Conservatism and innovation in the Hebrew language of the Hellenistic Period: Proceedings

of a Fourth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira.

Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 73. Leiden: Brill. pp. 61-78.

Van Peursen, W. 1999. Negation in the Hebrew of Ben Sira. In T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde

(eds.) Sirach, scrolls, and sages: Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the

Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, held at Leiden University, 15-17

December 1997. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 33. Leiden: Brill. pp. 223-243.

Waltke, B. K. and M. O’Connor. 1990. Introduction to Biblical Hebrew syntax. Winona Lake:

Eisenbrauns.



238

Yeivin, I. 1980. Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah. Translated and edited by E. J. Revell.

Society of Biblical Literature Masoretic Studies 5. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press.

Zewi, T. 1996a. Subordinate sentences involving prolepsis in Biblical Hebrew. Journal of

Semitic Studies 41: 1-20.

Zewi, T. 1996b. The definition of the copula and the role of 3rd independent personal pronouns

in nominal sentences of Semitic languages. Folia Linguistica Historica 17(1-2): 41-55.

Zewi, T. 1999. Tripartite nominal clauses and appositional clauses in Biblical Hebrew. Ancient

Near Eastern Studies 36: 36-47.

Zewi, T. 2000. Is there a tripartite nominal sentence in Biblical Hebrew? Journal of Northwest

Semitic Languages 26(2): 51-63.

Zewi, T. 2013. Nominal clause. In G. Khan (ed.) Encyclopedia of Hebrew language and

linguistics, vol. 2. Leiden: Brill. pp. 830-839.

Zwicky, A. M. 1977. On clitics. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Zwicky, A. M. 1985. Clitics and particles. Language 61(2): 283-305.

Date post:	17-Nov-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

At the interface of syntax and prosody: Differentiating ...

Documents